Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of Findings (SoF) for the comparison PUFAs versus placebo

From: Impact of polyunsaturated fatty acids on patient-important outcomes in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review

Summary of findings:

Should polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo be used for the treatment of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder?

Patient or population: children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder

Setting: outpatients

Intervention: polyunsaturated fatty acids

Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

№ of participants (studies)

Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Risk with placebo

Risk with polyunsaturated fatty acids

Hyperactivity

SMD 0.27 lower (0.6 lower to 0.06 higher)

146 (5 RCTs)

LOW a

lower scores indicate improvement

Aggression

SMD 0.29 lower (1.08 lower to 0.49 higher)

25 (1 RCT)

LOW a

lower scores indicate improvement

Irritability

SMD 0.02 lower (0.42 lower to 0.38 higher)

146 (5 RCTs)

LOW a

lower scores indicate improvement

Anxiety

SMD 1.01 lower (1.86 lower to 0.17 lower)

25 (1 RCT)

VERY LOW a,b

lower scores indicate improvement

Adaptive functioning

SMD 0.49 lower (1.2 lower to 0.22 higher)

59 (2 RCTs)

VERY LOW a,c,d

lower scores indicate worsening

Social interaction

SMD 0.01 lower (0.43 lower to 0.4 higher)

223 (6 RCTs)

VERY LOW a,e

lower scores indicate worsening

Restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors

SMD 0.01 higher (0.36 lower to 0.39 higher)

223 (6 RCTs)

LOW a

lower scores indicate improvement

Communication

SMD 0.05 lower (0.5 lower to 0.4 higher)

223 (6 RCTs)

LOW a

lower scores indicate worsening

  1. *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
  2. a Downgraded of two levels because population size < 400 and there is a wide 95%CI, which includes no effect
  3. b Downgraded of one level because the measure used was the internalizing subscale of the BASC, which only indirectly measures anxiety
  4. c Downgraded of one level because one study is at high risk for incomplete outcome data and unclear risk for blinding and selective reporting
  5. d Downgraded of one level, because in one study the “social skills, parents assessed” of the subscale “adaptive skills” of the BASC was extracted
  6. e Downgraded of one level because in two studies Social interaction was analyzed by the “social withdrawal” subscale of the ABC, which relates more to behavior and indirectly to social interaction
  7. CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio, SMD Standardized mean difference.
  8. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
  9. High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
  10. Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
  11. Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
  12. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.